The history of Britain and America is full of references about this, from the trials of Penn to the trials under the fugitive slave acts.
Nullification served a dual purpose: First, as a remedy for unjust laws and overzealous prosecutors.
Secondly, the early legal minds of this country were disinclined to demand a juror return any verdict that the juror could not in good conscience support. The "Right of Conscience" is one of our forgotten rights. A definition would go something lik this:
"We would rather a man do wrong, believing what he had done was right, than do right, but feeling in his heart he had done wrong"
I am deeply concerned that there have been a number of jury verdicts overthrown lately.
Excellent point, djf -- the idea being that no juror should walk away from his jury service with a tortured conscience, of feeling that his vote was inherently, morally wrong, even though it complied with the law as interpreted to him by the judge.
I, too, am deeply concerned that jury verdicts have been "nullified" by the legal system in recent times. As marron also points out on this thread, the OJ case is a great example. I don't have any particular sympathy for OJ, and think he probably murdered his wife and her friend. But the matter should have been over with after the criminal trial, regardless of whether we approved the jury's verdict or not. The later civil proceeding was a double-jeopardy for OJ, and a nullification of the criminal jury's verdict. This to me is most unsettling....